Clinician-reviewed library on anxiety, OCD, and phobias in children ages 5–12.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing articles, searching articles, citing, crisis resources, and site info. No two tools could be easily confused, even list and search are differentiated by query vs. pagination.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, etc.). The convention is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an article library, covering reading, searching, listing, citing, plus crisis and site info. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core library workflow: discover (list/search), access (get), cite, and contextual info (microsite). The inclusion of crisis resources is a thoughtful addition for the domain. No obvious gaps for a read-only content library.
cite_articleCite articleAGet a formatted citation for a Anxiety in Children article. Supports AMA, APA, and Chicago styles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. | |
| format | No | Citation style (default ama). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds little behavioral detail beyond the core action of returning a citation. It doesn't mention defaults, error behavior, or output shape, but the annotation reduces the burden. This is acceptable but unremarkable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and result. It avoids redundancy and includes only essential details about supported styles. Minor grammar issue ('a Anxiety') does not detract from its concise, effective structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return type ('formatted citation') and scope. It could mention the default style or clarify the relationship to get_article, but the current description is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Article slug' and 'Citation style'). The description reinforces the supported styles but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('formatted citation') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_article, which would retrieve content. It also names the supported styles (AMA, APA, Chicago), making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly establishes when to use the tool (when a formatted citation is needed) and gives context about supported styles. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is obvious from the purpose, especially alongside the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_articleGet articleAFetch a single article from Anxiety in Children by slug. Returns title, body content, author, clinical reviewer, citations, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data source scope ('from Anxiety in Children') and enumerating the returned parts (title, body, author, reviewer, citations, metadata), which helps set expectations beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences deliver all essential information: what the tool does, how the article is identified, and what the response contains. No filler or repetition; front-loaded with the verb and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the precise lookup mechanism, the article source, and the expected return fields, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no extra format, constraints, or behavioral details beyond saying the lookup is by slug, which keeps the score at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the exact resource ('a single article from Anxiety in Children'), the identifier ('by slug'), and the returned content fields. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_articles or search_articles, which handle broader retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you have a known slug and need a single full article. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use search_articles to find an article'), but the context is clear enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_crisis_resourcesGet crisis resourcesAReturn the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload. Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true. The description adds that the payload is 'canonical' and suggests it should be surfaced with urgency, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions with the read-only annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence states the function and the second gives usage guidance. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward read-only action, the description fully covers its purpose, usage trigger, and distinguishes it from all siblings. It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions no parameters, but none exist to document, so no additional value is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'). It distinguishes itself from siblings that handle articles/microsite info, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This is a clear trigger condition. Since no alternative tool exists for this purpose (siblings are about articles), no exclusions are necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_microsite_infoAbout this micrositeAIdentity and links for Anxiety in Children: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship to Emora Health, and key URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the types of information returned (tagline, audience, sponsor relationship, etc.), which is contextual. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors such as response format, potential exceptions, or data freshness, so it does not go beyond what the annotation and basic intent convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the identity of the microsite and packs all key content points without fluff. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool, the description fully enumerates the expected return content: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, and key URLs. Since there is no output schema, this list serves as the primary explanation of the tool's output, and it is sufficient. The readOnly annotation and sibling context complete the picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly includes no parameter details, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuously). There is nothing to add about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies what the tool provides: identity and links for the 'Anxiety in Children' microsite, enumerating specific content like tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, and URLs. This is a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with articles or crisis resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the content: use this tool when you need identity and link information about the microsite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor comparison with siblings such as get_article or get_crisis_resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_articlesList articlesAPaginated list of articles from Anxiety in Children. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (default 30, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying pagination and the exact fields returned. This is more than just restating the annotation; it helps the agent know what to expect in the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with no output schema, but the description adequately states the return fields. However, it does not hint at the sibling search_articles for filtering or other capabilities, which could lead an agent to misuse this tool for search-like needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both params (page, limit) having descriptions. The description's mention of 'paginated' adds slight context but does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource ('articles from Anxiety in Children') and explicitly states the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_article (single article) and search_articles (searching).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this tool is for paginated browsing of articles, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like search_articles. There are no exclusions or alternative references, but the context is clear enough for basic use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesSearch articlesASearch Anxiety in Children's editorial corpus by query. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL for matching articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Alternate parameter name for `query`. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds that results return title, slug, summary, and URL, which is useful. But no further behavioral details are disclosed, such as matching semantics or result sorting. Since the annotation covers the main safety aspect, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that includes the action, resource, and expected output fields. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does explain what the tool returns, which is a key part of contextual completeness. It is a simple search tool with 3 parameters, and the description covers the corpus scope and returned fields. Minor omissions like sorting or edge-case behavior are not critical for this level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all parameters (query, q, limit) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('Anxiety in Children's editorial corpus'), and the output fields returned. This clearly differentiates from siblings like list_articles (which implies listing all) and get_article (which implies fetching a single article).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: use when you need to find articles by a free-text query. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus list_articles or get_article, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!